Ron Paul: A Popular Libertarian Candidate in 2020 Is 'Very Possible'
The former 1988 Libertarian nominee and 2008 and 2012 Republican candidate for president says Trump is just a temporary setback for the libertarian moment.

Distrust in America's foreign and monetary policies, unrelieved by the election of Donald Trump, is going to be a "big opening" for libertarians in 2020, former Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul told the Washington Examiner.
Trump was able to co-opt much of the messaging of an establishment that has maintained a bipartisan consensus on these issues without offering much of substance to voters committed to the values of freedom.
"The appearance of the libertarian movement has been set back partially because of Trump, but intellectually we've been doing well," Paul said. "We as libertarians have some work to do before [voters] are going to accept a true-blue libertarian, but I think moving in that direction and having a popular candidate is very possible" in 2020.
Paul called the economic upturn this year "a bit of an illusion," and said U.S. monetary policy benefits those connected to government, creating the most pernicious form of "inequality."
"It's a bubble economy in many, many different ways and it's going to come unglued," said Paul, who has previously blamed the Federal Reserve for what he sees as a bitcoin bubble.
"We're on the verge of something like what happened in '89 when the Soviet system just collapsed," Paul told the Examiner. "I'm just hoping our system comes apart as gracefully."
The Examiner noted that Paul doesn't think the U.S. will break up the way that the Soviet Union did, but rather that the U.S. will have to deal with its unsustainable foreign policy and the Fed-driven monetary policy that helps fuel it.
"I think our stature in the world and our empire will end, and that's when, hopefully, the doors will be open and [people will] say, 'Hey, maybe these libertarians have some answers to this'," Paul told the Examiner. "If they only hear our message, I know they would choose liberty and sound money and freedom and peace over the mess we have today."
Paul's criticism of Trump's foreign policy is understandable. Trump was never the non-interventionist some (at times even Paul's son, Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul) made him out to be.
"I think the foreign policy is a total disaster," Paul told the Examiner."Trump's approach sounds good one day but the next day he's antagonizing everyone in the world and thinks we should start a war here and there."
Paul also said he'd be delighted if Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has been a disaster for civil liberties, although he's not optimistic the replacement would be any better.
Read the rest of the interview at the Examiner.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"We as libertarians have some work to do before [voters] are going to accept a true-blue libertarian, but I think moving in that direction and having a popular candidate is very possible" in 2020.
IF HE'S POPULAR HE WON'T BE LIBERTARIAN.
"I, and other women, won't vote libertarian because the children."
Source: my wife who is perhaps the most libertarian woman I have ever met.
I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
This is what I do... http://www.onlinecareer10.com
"I, and other women, won't vote libertarian because the children."
Source: my wife who is perhaps the most libertarian woman I have ever met.
Both of them?
The Prophet allows up to four.
Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day... Get regular payment on a weekly basis... All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time...
Read more here,..... http://www.startonlinejob.com
Libertarian moments are like those moments about forty five minutes after eating Chinese food when you have an uncontrollable urge to take an explosive shit, and after you purge your bowels it is over.
"We're on the verge of something like what happened in '89 when the Soviet system just collapsed," Paul told the Examiner.
I suppose nothing would be more libertarian than the unmolested rise of the oligarchs.
As a left-libertarian, my top 3 2020 presidential candidates are Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren. Unless Russia hacks that election too, I'm confident any one of them will beat Drumpf, or whoever is in office once Mueller concludes his investigation.
Sure, ok.
Don't fall for this second-rate troll, Ed.
I think he's quite funny, actually.
As a 2000 foot tall fuscia smurf, I think you have no idea what you are.
Elizabeth Warren? I can hear the Brer Republicans going "Oh please don't nominate a shrill Ivy League 70 year old white woman who talks down to common people, Trump will lose to a candidate like that for sure"
No way Trump gets the GOP nom in 2020.
There's no way he doesn't.
By 2020 every GOP hack will owe him something.
I'm not a Trump fan, but the only way he doesn't get the GOP nomination in 2020 is if he chooses not to run. No incumbent president has actually lost his party's nomination for a second term since 1884 (Arthur) and he hadn't actually been elected president in the first place (he was Garfield's VP and became president after Garfield's death). Only one president that was elected to the office in the first instance has lost the nomination for a second term -- Pierce in 1856 -- and that was when there was no real primary system at all.
Trump is the most admired man in America who will be eligible to run in 2020, per Gallup.
I don't think its likely that Trump will lose the primary nomination for no other reason than all the other GOP candidates will just split the vote among themselves with Trump getting the plurality. Although head-to-head, he probably would have lost to several opponents, if not the majority of them.
Now, if the "never Trumpers" had a "deal" where the losers of their subprimaries would **all** agree to drop out except for one after Iowa (or Iowa + FL) and have him/her run against Trump head-to-head (and hope no non-never-Trumpers still remain), I can see a scenario where Trump loses the primary.
But then the voters will all say that it was rigged anyway, and a huge chunk of them will sit out or write Trump in the General. So the establishment will find a way to keep "the deal" from happening.
Someone needs to visit the Dilbert blog predictions page...
And of course he betrayed the protectionists completely, so he's not winning WI, MI, or PA again even if he does get the nom.
The first thing to consider is that he has three more years to get stuff for the Trumpism voters passed. Year One, policy-wise was heavily about bringing the Republican Party begrudgingly back together. That Trump is already back to talking infrastructure suggests that he's going to try that (aimed toward his base) in 2018, especially as a way to energize them before November.
Given all the stories we're seeing of companies giving bonuses and raising wages off the tax cut, it could be interesting to see how he pivots (lumbers I gracefully around?) to a pro-worker focus using more conventionally GOP tools in the new year.
On 2020, if anything, I can see Trump being more likely than other incumbents to have a primary challenge, but I could also see him having one from either side. Yet, I likewise see him beating that challenge a la Carter (whether that leaves him weakened for November a la Carter is another question; I can't vouch for the sanity of the Democrats or what actual quality of candidate they'll seek to field in 2020).
Have we not all learned there's no predicting what voters will warm to?
Have we not all learned there's no predicting what voters will warm to which portions of the populace will actually bother to vote?
Any candidate can win, the trick is convincing your rivals' voters that they shouldn't bother playing.
I think we have learned that black voters will turn out in droves for black candidates, but not for old white women.
A sassy black woman would be able to get all the voters to turn out.
+ Medea
They turned out for a white dude in Alabama. But maybe they just didn't want to be represented by a child diddler.
"As a left-libertarian, my top 3 presidential candidates are people who are in no way libertarian."
THATSTHEJOKE.gif
Oh good, I was just wondering what an 80-year-old Republican who has never come close to winning a national election thought about the electoral future of my party.
We already had one candidate who died and never would have made it to election time. Ron Paul has a perfect voting record on energy, but he still wants the Political State for force women at gunpoint to have babies they do not want. Ulysses S. Grant signed the Comstock law (in crash/Depression year 1873), and Republicans have made this Mohammedan-style sumptuary law the basis and foundation for their race-suicide nationalsocialist policies. Enough is enough!
So which libertarian has gained more votes or raised more money in a national election than Ron Paul?
Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has been a disaster for civil liberties
How has he been a disaster for civil liberties?
He has been exactly like every other AG considered for the position over the last 12 years.
So, I guess it depends on what baseline you use.
I wouldn't say disaster more roadblock as AG to date but Ron might have been speaking about Sessions political career as a whole in which case disaster would be appropriate.
Patriot Act supporter, against any reform for surveillance state, pro mandatory mins, pro drug war, pro civil asset forfeiture ...
Jeff Sessions rolled back some restrictions on civil forfeiture put in place by Obama's Presidency (possibly even by Eric Holder).
Frankly, as much as I distrust the socialist Democrats, I was pleasantly surprised that they had done that, and somewhat disappointed to learn about it by hearing about it being rolled back.
Reading this thread, it is stunning ... STUNNING ... how many wingers are so totally ignorant of Sessions history and values. REJECTED AS A FEDERAL JUDGE FOR BEING TOO RACIST.
So perfect for the Donald.
Unlike the dishonest fugazi scumbag libertarians here at Reason who put a dagger in his back and shamefully smeared him as a "racist" when he needed their support the most, I will always have the utmost respect for Ron Paul.
But.... I don't agree with him in this case. It's still very early, but after just one year Trump has already been one of the most libertarian presidents in my lifetime (which granted, isn't saying very much and he's by no means perfect). He just gave about 90% of working, taxpaying Americans a wonderful Christmas present with a real and substantial tax cut that takes effect in five days, has done more to eliminate federal regulations that any president in decades, and his judicial picks like Gorsuch and Willett have been absolutely outstanding.
But Twitter!
Would you have excused Obama if he had behaved as crass and deranged?
Trump is hardly unique in this regard, as explained in this enlightening article that you won't read because of the source.
The Bigmouth Tradition of American Leadership
There is no excuse for Trump's public behavior. Call me a conservative.
Swearing in private is not his sin. And he tweets insanities in preschool English despite apparently being a nondrinker.
I prefer to judge everyone by their actions instead of their words. Sticks and stones buttercup, suck it up
He tweets I'm preschool English so folks like you can understand
Sure, if he had also cut taxes, eliminated federal regulations, and picked people like Gorsuch and Willett for the courts. With a record like that, I'd even be somewhat willing to overlook the fact that he was a Democrat!
I was just waiting for the Paulites to come out of the woodwork and say "on second thought, I actually do prefer Trump over Ron Paul", thereby conclusively proving that they were actually Team Red Republicans all along.
If he had a 60% approval rating that would be one thing. But we have to sit and witness Reason be a home of the Trump holdouts? With the whole rest of the internet out there?
And it's not like he's just any Republican. He's a particularly awful human being by any objective standard. Which makes their support all the more tribal, I suppose. They'd never let Obama get away with even an hour of Trump's lies and crassness.
Funny, considering that you seem to be the type that would hammer on Republican gaffs until the cows come home (along with everyone else) but conveniently ignore and excuse Democrat gaffs.
I personally don't like Trump, and I'm still not sure if I could bring myself to vote for him a second time around, but one thing I can see, is that he's been better at slashing government than either Republicans *or* Democrats have been in the last few decades.
Had Obama actually vetoed ObamaCare rather than sign it into law, cut other regulations, cut taxes, cut spending, and so forth, I would have been willing to give him a lot more slack than I gave him. The problem I have with Obama, though, is that he does things (such as clamp down on our freedoms) that I disagree with...whereas you seem to be convinced that the only reasons people opposed Obama was because he was a Democrat, and (gasp!) had dark skin!
Come to think of it, aren't you the fellow who equates the Heritage Foundation Health Care plan with the ObamaCare plan because it has exactly one thing in common -- a requirement to buy health insurance -- and who seems to think that, because a conservative think tank thought something up, conservatives and libertarians automatically have to support it, and because it's identical (except for everything else) to ObamaCare, those people are therefore hypocrites?
If so, and I'm pretty sure it *is* so, it is YOU who expects everyone else to play Team Politics, while everyone else evaluates everything based on what they think...
The libertarians here don't support Trump.
Trump Team Red?
lol
Unlike Dipshit Dave Weigel and the rest of Welchie Boy's merry gang of fraudsters, I really wanted Paul to become president.
I have to say, you sound like you're as dishonest as shameless as they are.
A FUCKING FASCIST PRESIDENT ... TO IMPOSE YOUR SHAMEFUL BIGOTRY BY FORCE?
The Ron Paul who lies about the 10th Amendment?
Tried to forbid SCOTUS from even hearing any challenges to DOMA, which would have made gays the first entire group denied constitutional rights since slavery.
Like Trump, denies THREE co-equal branches, checks and balances, balance of power, and says we are defenseless against constitutional abuse by state government. (THE prime enabler of the alt-right that dominates this commentariat)
A totally shameful opponent of equal, unalienable and.or God-given rights -- claims states have the power of bigotry, explicitly denied them by the 9th Amendment. And the 14th (marriage equality)
YOU are a threat to my life and liberty ..... reaches for AK-47
Any political movement built around a philosophical viewpoint is doomed to failure. People aren't loyal to philosophies, they're loyal to other people.
Our single spoiler electoral vote forced the legalization of abortion. The LP has made ku-klux prohibitionists back away from tarbrushing and coercing queers, and is now putting in place a sort of second 21st Amendment to stop the Feds from shooting more kids and robbing more parents over plant leaves. That is WINNING! Looter parties are in the business of getting government paychecks and buying votes so their boys can have jobs libertarians don't even want. Our spoiler votes make them choose between coercive laws and getting fired. This is simple fractions, 9th grade arithmetic. Integrity is the friend of freedom.
Rush Limbaugh and every other right wing radio hack might disagree.
Contributions must be slow.
I can't wait for Hihn to talk about Ron Paul.
BULLY!
Hihn is definitely gonna show up for this thread, probably sometime next year after the worms have finished picking over the bones, and he will shit all over the remains of the corpse. So let's give him some material to gnaw on.
Nah, he'll be here in probably about 20 minutes, as soon as the early bird seating is over at Denny's.
Dead on.
Death, taxes, and Hihn shitting all over a Ron Paul thread when it was just about to die.
Just what we need... another mystical, superstitious, woman-bullying Bob Barr clone, endorsed by Alex Jones, whack job extraordinaire! Surely the Tea Party & Klan can come up with a better 5th-column infiltration vector to foist on us.
I guess that's an interesting question -- if Ron Paul runs against Donald Trump, who does Jones endorse?
Crazy Alex Jones will take Trump over Ron Paul ten out of ten times.
Alex Jones's "libertarian" schtick has morphed to all Trump, all the time. It will continue to morph to keep his overpriced supplement / Infowars gear racket going.
The foreign policy stuff is fair enough, but the Fed obsession is lizard people territory. Ron Paul will drop before he drops it, though, I suppose.
I think libertarians should go all-in on criminal justice reform, purge the fucking Limbaugh bullshit, join functioning coalitions, and actually accomplish something in this world.
I knew I could count on you to string a bunch of completely unrelated issues together and make them into some sort of sentence. Delicious. Thanks.
Re: Tony,
Because money needs a central planner? Or what is the argument for the Fed, in your estimation? Leaving that aside, the Dems are not precisely Market-friendly, so the only coalitions possible between the L's and the Dems is on, as you said it, criminal justice reform and perhaps immigration, and that last one only if the Dems stop playing Latin American immigrants for suckers.
The Fed: because it works better than the obsolete fairy tale you're selling.
The Democrats are extremely market friendly. Every normal civilized country in the world has a market-based economy (with some degree of a public sector). You won. Capitalism won. Yay! Now just set aside your culty market worship bullshit that forces you to believe and espouse ridiculous things, and we can start taking about the world in a way that treats it as something resembling reality.
If you're a small political minority you either join a coalition or start behaving rudely in public to get attention. Knock yourself out either way.
Popular, yes. Please!
Not 'Populist'. The 'Populist' candidates that have been inflicted on us so far range from an moldy old socialist to an economically incompetent p...y-grabber to a Southern pederast.
Paul is right about the U.S.A. Because of irresponsible deficit spending the U.S. government will collapse relatively soon. Some states may secede even before a financial breakup occurs. It is just a matter of time. A financial catastrophe will stimulate secession by states that otherwise would not have seceded. Libertarians? I don't think they have a prayer of taking power in the current structure. Democrats (who are really Fascists) and Republicans (who are really oligarchists) have the system sewed up tight.
Democrats are a mundane center-left technocratic party as might be found slightly left- or right-of-center in every other civilized country on earth.
The Republicans are, well I don't even know what you call that shitshow anymore. Oligarchist yes, but also completely insane. Theocrazy? Klepto-mania? The 4th Reich: Electric Boogaloo?
Let's not allow the excesses of one affect our assessment of the other.
The Democrats are democratic socialists or further left by the standards of most civilized countries.
For the most part, moderate Christian Democrats, as might be found in every other civilized country on earth.
Lot of delusion from old Ron.
Popular candidate? He must mean a candidate that has popular policies, and there could be no more popular policy among illegal immigrants (and large parts of the Democrat base) than the open borders mantra of many libertarians. Yet those types don't seem to vote for libertarians, do they?
I'm guessing when ICE raid illegal immigrant locales they don't find stacks of well-thumbed Reasons, or witness the desperate burning and flushing of Libertarian Party pamphlets. There should be a lesson in that for Ron.
Ron Paul ran a campaign ad in 2008 that featured attempted illegal immigration by swimming across a river. I don't think he's your enemy on this one.
Why are these "Hope for Libertarian" stories always about the Presidency? For the love of country and effectiveness, focus on House and Senate races. Surely the Libertarian party can collude with Republicans on congressional races Republicans have little chance of winning, not run a Republican candidate and let a Libertarian unseat a Democrat (and vise versa)? We're never gonna get a Libertarian president if we don't at least have some positive examples of Libertarians in congress.
I keep arguing that the LP needs to go after all those uncontesting city council and state assembly seats, leaning into either the "fiscal conservative" or "social permissive" (to use Gary terms) side of the platform as needed depending on who they're running against, aiming at younger voters and those bored by the lack of choice. Get an interesting local candidate (perhaps a well-known local entrepreneur) and take a few less-competitive seats. That way, you have established officials who can run for a mayorship, state senate seat or the like. Spend a generation being recognized by casuals as an actual third party (think of the Lib Dems in the UK, being useful and sometimes necessary coalition partners while gaining dominance in certain local spots) before trying to be serious about congress, governships, or ever the presidency.
Somebody put Ron back into his casket.
*breaks out as a zombie*
itshappening.gif
Lemme gues. That candidate is your spawn Rand Paul (R-Kentucky)
Rand Paul must be kicking himself over running in 2016 rather than being able to run in 2020, knowing all the ophthalmologist dad jokes he could have made on the trail about "20/20"...
A setback for "the libertarian moment"? Is Ron Paul trying to be funny here or is he really that out of it?
What Trump proved is that there is no libertarian moment now or in the near future. Trump's only problem is that he is 90 years too late to catch the Progressive's "we need a strong leader" train. Americans aren't looking for freedom, they're looking for a savior.
Hillary ran as the "strong leader", a progressive, and someone who would fix our problems through intelligent, strong leadership and lots of laws and regulations. What happened?
Americans preferred an inarticulate, politically inexperienced, failed businessman because they wanted ACA repealed, wanted lower taxes, wanted less regulation, and wanted government out of their hair when it came to sex, sexual orientation, and race.
The Progressive's "we need a strong leader" train is run by the same people as it always has been: Democrats, progressives, and leftists. Republicans couldn't produce a strong leader if they tried (and they tried).
Hilary couldn't come across as strong because she's not. She rode her husband's coattails and barely defeated an underfunded nobody for her Senate seat in a state whose Republican party is a joke.
Few people voted for Trump because they wanted less regulation. They wanted to end immigration, stop companies from moving overseas and get even with "those people", "those people" being anyone they disliked.
This was an election about punishing your enemies and had nothing to do with issues. Hilary's loser supporters screamed in the streets because the whips and chains that they expected to use on Republicans were now in the hands of their enemies. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse were now serving the Dark Lord.
Trump 's inarticulate, unending, self contradictory Tweetstorms was a Rorschach test where people saw their worst fears and greatest hopes. As president he is most like the "Magic 8-Ball" that gives random answers to questions. The weird part is that his purely random actions have been better than either of his predecessors who were consistently bad. Sometimes, although for no apparent reason, Trump does the right thing - Gorsuch, most court appointments and de-regulation.
Trump has proven that a random number generator can be a better president than a "pragmatic" politician.
Ron Paul is still a member of the "The Fed Makes All Bad Things Happen" club. The Bit Coin Bubble? Really?
Is there anything that is not caused by the Fed? Could Bernie Madoff swindle people without the Fed pumping up the economy? I suppose that Panam, TWA and Eastern Airlines all went bankrupt because of the Fed? Did the Fed make the Red Sox trade Babe Ruth? I'm sure that RP can prove that the Fed's easy money policies drove Ruth's salary so high that to cut costs the Red Sox sold their best pitcher.
Business regulation does far more damage than the Fed could ever do. In addition, regulation is a force multiplier for the Fed by restricting capital movements that attempt to ameliorate the damage done when the Fed unleashes it currency schemes.
The biggest problem with "Austrians" is their single minded and simple minded explanation that the Fed is the ultimate evil. Getting rid of a central bank is a good idea but unless the regulatory state is rolled back the end of the Fed won't be nearly enough.
I can't tell: are you simply a liar with a political agenda or are you really that ignorant of what Austrian economics means?
He has no idea what Austrian Economics means:
http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_7074912
No real Austrian economist seriously believes that a central bank is the ultimate cause of all economic problems. Rothbard's work on the Great Depression makes it clear that recessions are normal but a central bank, in attempting to prevent a depression, exacerbates a bubble and turns a normal correction into a catastrophe. Rothbard understood why the Great Depression of 1920 never happened.
Ron Paul, however, while claiming to be an "Austrian" assigns nearly all problems to the Fed. Compared to his constant Fed bashing how much energy did he spend on regulatory issues? As much as I like Ron Paul, (I was a Ron Paul delegate in 2012) he doesn't appreciate the problems of regulation. Too many of RP's supporters see the Fed as the Death Star and if you can blow up this planet destroyer then the Empire is defeated.
The Fed is a terrible institution that causes untold grief for most people, but regulation makes it impossible to avoid the Fed's policies and is therefore a worse threat. When people are free to move, the Fed can't create another Great Depression.
If the press and media refused to take Gary Johnson and Bill Weld seriously or give them any attention, there's no way in hell any other libertarian is going to get any attention.
What's with the cocaine-infused comment section today?
With all due respect to Ron Paul, out of the +-25% of positions that I don't agree with the libertarians on, removing the Federal Reserve and going back to the gold standard has got to be one of the more retarded ideas.
I mean seriously, do we really want to go back to the 1700 and 1800 hundreds, with peaks and "panics" constantly happening every 20 years. The gold standard has been proven to be a disaster. Funny how Bitcoin got thrown in this article, as thats exactly what would happen to our dollar if it were on the gold standard. Someone on Wall Street had a bad day, setting off a chain reaction, and poof, the dollar is down 25% over the weekend. Then its worth up 10% the next month. No thanks.
Although I guess now I can see why Bitcoin has become the darling of the hardcore die-hard libertarians. If you support the gold standard, supporting Bitcoin makes sense. The constant speculation is a feature, not a bug.
Non Sequitur.
How much inflation has there been since the 1930s (when the gold standard was all but abandoned)?
Fluctuations in Bitcoin are (mostly) due to asset inflation (the panic from too much inflation and too low an interest rate - thanks Fed) and because the pool is still too small to be very stable.
http://www.52insk.com/2016/soros/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation
Yeah, non-gold backed fiat currency is actually a bad thing!
I'm interested in what your reformed LP Platform would say. Damned Platform Committees tweak a word here or there but when was the last time anything radical was included?
Re: Michael Hindered,
Are you saying that "We won't steal your stuff and we won't pick up fights with other societies for no good reason" are not credible policy solutions?
If so, then a truly frightening picture jumps into my mind on these "credible policy solutions" you would hold as acceptable.
Cato reports that 91% of THEM reject the libertarian label at all.
Wrong. Cato once reported it, but that was over a decade ago. By pretending it's in any way current you reveal yourself to be intellectually dishonest and barely worth the effort it took to compose this sentence, much less actually debate.
I think that's rather the point of libertarianism: it isn't supposed to provide solutions, it isn't supposed to make people happy, healthy, or wealthy; all it is supposed to do is increase liberty so that people can prosper or fail on their own.
"Git gummint out" is NOT a policy solution.
On this part I will agree with you. Just saying "cut government" isn't enough.
So you have your chance to advance libertarianism, you failed miserably, and now you just rant and rave at people on Reason.
Look at Hihn complaining about falling prices. Classic. Let me ask you this, Michael. Do you believe in the free market? If so, are there any economic goods that are exempt from the economic rules of the free market?
Mike Heinie, I knew I could count on you to spew a bunch of incoherent psychobabble all over the place. You definitely don't disappoint. Yummy. Thanks for lesson in libratarianismisms. You're so smart...
You didn't answer my question.
I agree. We need "burn everything down", "sow the earth with salt", and "dam up the Pontamac, make Washington DC to be a literal swamp again" to augment the slogan...
Me and my billions in bitcoin scoff at your fed and inferior fiat currency...
You make it sound like America had a free market in living memory. We haven't had one (particularly in health care) for *decades*.
Isn't MedicAid (along with MediCare, Social Security, and a couple of other entitlement programs) among the welfare spending that's threatening to destroy the Federal Government? Particularly because these programs combined guarantee that we'll have a spending deficit, year after year?
And aren't these the same people who give us Veterans Administration health benefits? I've seen what our country provides for our veterans -- the people who fight and are maimed and die for our country -- and I fail to see how it would be a good idea to expand this program to cover all Americans.
At what point are we going to admit that entitlement programs are merely Ponzi schemes, and that we're far better off getting government out of the way, and letting the free market work?
It doesn't matter if the Will of the People (whatever *that* means) wants government control,
if that government control in unsustainable. When the Will of the People crashes into Fundamental Laws of Economics, the Fundamental Laws of Economics will win every time.
(And no, the Government didn't step in because of free market failure. Government stepped in, and caused free market failure, and then claimed that they could fix it.)
Oh, and I forgot to add: I *really* wish politicians would learn to teach the people how freedom works, and then explain why government fails us. Indeed, Republicans would have a better chance of repealing that ObamaCare abomination, if they but parade the victims of ObamaCare in front of the nation.
But they don't. It's as if most Republicans are convinced that the only reason Government doesn't work, is that they aren't the ones in charge...
And it's working.
Sounds like a good libertarian to me.
Ya never know, but if it had come down to Trump or that socialist scumbag Bernie I would have voted for Trump instead of Gary. I doubt I'm the only one.
I'd vote for Gary Johnson a hundred times before I'd vote for Ron Paul. Gary's goofy, but Ron is mean spirited and weird. HOWEVER, if the Dems keep up their current hysteria, I'm going with Trump. I keep asking myself just why, why, why did Gary say nice things about Hillary Clinton? Did he think potential Hillary voters were coming over to him? "Goofy" just doesn't come close to describing Gary's thinking!
The funny thing is you whine about everybody bullying and being aggressive towards you when you say things like "you clearly have no clue what are "related issues" to libertarians ... compared with Tony -- a lefty! Everything he specified is a libertarian issue. And the Fed is indeed for lizard people." I wasn't even talking to you and you start the aggression from nowhere and make a completely non-sensical statement like this. How is Rush Limbaugh a libertarian issue? How is joining a coalition a libertarian issue? Why do you even show up here.....although, I must admit, I enjoy listening to you whine about how the libertarian party has no solutions and then you go ahead spout on about god-knows-what-but-its-not-a-policy. Go suck a turd, but please stick around. It's almost enjoyable...
Hihn: you keep verbally aggressing against the commenters on Reason. You are a rude, uncouth bully. Don't complain when people verbally hit back at you in self defense.
A purity spiral is a sad thing to witness. It always seems to devolve into mere grunting in the end. And it doesn't matter the place on the political spectrum. Look how stupid and ineffectual the Bernie fanboys are.
"A purity spiral is a sad thing to witness"
MeToo
So beautiful!
No, the aggression started with you, years ago, disrupting discussion after discussion.
Hihn showing his true colors.
http://www.mises.org/library/history-feds-political-power
It would be. Unfortunately, most self-proclaimed libertarians don't actually stand for this; you certainly don't.
You, your parents failed
Ok, I just read what you actually said. You still give off Statist vibes.
In part, because you don't offer valid Libertarian solutions that would fix the Libertarian platform.
In part, that's because you give the impression that Libertarians don't succeed because they don't want to create the Government Programs that the Will of the People clamor for, and are even hostile to the idea that I think politicians should get off their duff and actually *teach* people about freedom.
You don't want "stable prices". You want deflation.
Fractional reserve banking will do that to you.
There are several ways of maintaining stable prices, and monetary policy is indeed one of them. What you don't seem to understand is that Austrians consider price stability harmful, which is why they oppose such monetary policy.
This is what Austrian economists have to say about it:
Fractional reserve banking will cause fluctuations in price. "Deflation" is good. My Bitcoin is "deflating" (price deflating) and I'm very happy about that.
https://mises.org/library/deflating-deflation-myth
Of course a gold standard causes price fluctuations and deflation; I wasn't contesting that.
I was simply observing that you agreed with Marx and his analysis of the exploitation of the working class: your true colors.
I don't bother paying enough attention to your proposals to either oppose or support them.
http://www.mises.org/library/can-anarcho-capitalism-work
So you are saying that big government provides the "teat of liberty"? I guess we shouldn't be surprised after you said that "Marx was right".
I'm with Thoreau: "That government is best which governs least".
Mark22 doesn't oppose any of your proposals because Mark22 doesn't have an opinion on any of your proposals.
What kind of a human thinks it's OK to take someone out on a boat and leave them 100 miles out on the ocean?
http://reason.com/blog/2017/03.....nt_6804634
Michael Hihn is your answer.
But, regardless of your defense of murder:
The Lord bless you
and keep you;
the Lord make his face shine on you
and be gracious to you;
the Lord turn his face toward you
and give you peace.
I neither oppose nor support any of your proposals. I simply don't discuss issues with you at all because I think you're mad. I just wish you'd stop poisoning Reason threads with your ravings.
All I'm gonna say, don't take up Hihn on his offer of a boat ride. He thinks leaving you 100 miles out on the ocean isn't murder.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/03.....nt_6804634
You said you were part of the Libertarian Party Platform Committee. Obviously, you failed at persuading those people as much as you fail to persuade people here.
I neither oppose nor support any of your proposals. In fact, I simply don't care about abortion as an issue at all.
I do own it, and 45% down from 2000% up is still price deflation (over the long run).
That's how math works.
So you agree that you have no idea what Austrian Economics means. Good.
You can loan out money that was deposited and keep only a fraction of it within your system. So, if $100 were deposited and you needed to keep a 10% reserve, you could loan out $90. That would "create" a new $90 as there would be one person who could claim $100 and another who already had $90.
Because everyone likes having more purchasing power. (I'm referring to "price deflation", not monetary deflation, BTW.)
Nope, sorry, loans don't "create money", they simply create liquidity.
Yes, that was the topic of what I said, and what you linked to.
No, you just don't know how words work.
You misunderstand that price deflation is different from monetary deflation.
https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Inflation
Be the example Michael, teach us all in the The Way. You're so smart. You're the only one who's not a gubmint goober. You are the light and the way. Show us your magnificence...we're all here for you. Oh wait, you have no real ideas other than replacing the health care system with charity. But it's a great idea. Maybe you could run as the anti-gubmint goober candidate. Before you accuse me of stalking you, just know that I really enjoy the spew you spray everywhere. Love you=)
Cyber stalking blowhard - that actually sums up your entire existence here on Reason
So you wouldn't vote for him?
Your expectations are way too high for Hihn. His parents had no expectations of him, and he didn't disappoint them either.
"Hi, I'm Micheal Hihn, and I suck the fun out of every room I walk into. I ramble ad infinitum about 'people being mean to me' and I can't understand why. However, I keep coming back because I don't have very good social skills"
You have a strange way of making everyone's day. I'm a libertarian, but at least I have social skills. Seriously Mike, why do you continue to come to Reason? Have other sites banned you because of your lack of social skills and/or general shitty attitude about everyone that isn't Michael C Hihn?
You would know about useless...
So at one point in your life you actually convinced people to support you, to the point they voted for you for office? Getting on the town council is not the same as being chosen to police the trailer park.
I'm calling bullshit, because you are one of the most ridiculous people I've come across online. You yell (your All-Caps are notorious), have very thin skin ("everyone is agressing me"), and overall make rambling and incoherent posts.
Can you at least admit that everyone comes in here just to see what insanity you post? And I'll make another assumption: this is the only attention you get from other human beings in a daily basis.
Thanks for the correction and clarification Mikey, I'm going to spend the day reading your web archives so I can truly understand the depth of your genius. Thanks for correcting my wrong-thought and encouraging me to pull my head out of my ass. I can see so much better now. I also realize that the way you interact with people is only because you have to beat it into everyone's head how wrong they are and how right you are, if only they would pay attention. I'm also flattered to be your stalker. I only wish I was important enough to have people stalking me for speaking truth. Maybe someday...
Would you some cheese with your whine? I'd say you're a much prettier snowflake than me =)
After reading your response, I realize that you don't understand math or words.
If $100 is deposited, 10% of that is $10. That means $90 can be loaned out.
To complicate things, out of that $90, if it's deposited, $81 can be loaned out, and so on.
Hihn doesn't understand fractional reserve banking (and/or words).
Well, I don't care what "standard" people choose. Bitcoin, silver, gold, beads, lead - I don't care.
Now, if you wanted to have a gold standard without fractional reserves, it would simply mean that the bank couldn't loan out any percent of the $100 deposited. Unless, that is, they required the deposit to stay deposited for a certain amount of time, then they could loan it out as long as they had it back before the depositor had the right to withdraw it.
That would be the essence of 100% reserve banking.
https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Full_reserve_banking
Right deflation (you were talking price deflation, not monetary deflation).
Perhaps (in nominal terms), but with everyone getting more rich, it would give them more purchasing power, which would mean their wages would go up in real terms.
https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Deflation
You had said:
I responded with an article as to why it'd be a good idea. Another direct response:
http://www.mises.org/blog/let's-ditch-fed-right-reasons
I suppose it doesn't matter what anyone says 9 months ago, right?
No, I simply got sick of your nonsense and decided to record the dumbest things you've said so I can take a short cut to avoid debates that take weeks. It's way easier to simply say, "Hey, don't listen to Hihn, because he thinks it's OK to take someone out on a boat and leave them 100 miles out on the ocean" and give them a link to it.
It effectively shows anyone starting to believe your nonsense why they shouldn't.
Also, I have quite a few trolls throughout reason.com and mises.org that I do the same for. You should feel honored, Hihn, you've made it on my "obnoxious trolls that I need to record what they say" list. It helps the arguments go much faster.
But, regardless of you lack of respect for any human life, the one right to not be aggressed against, and all your attempts to deflect from your horrific concepts of morality:
The Lord bless you
and keep you;
the Lord make his face shine on you
and be gracious to you;
the Lord turn his face toward you
and give you peace.
Basically, the depositor accepts the risk that in return for a higher interest rate he may have to wait to withdraw his funds. Certificates of deposit do that now so it's hardly a weird, untested idea.
That's a great point. Attempting to produce price stability necessitates an increase in the money supply when productivity increases. This simply shifts the benefits of increased productivity from the producer to a more favored political group. It's an almost invisible form of wealth redistribution.
The biggest bullsbhit of all --- mostly the Christian Taliban.-- that the woman's unalienable right to Liberty is precisely equal to the fetal child's unalienable Right to Life. DUH
NO unalienable right can EVER be denied or disparaged ... for ANY reason.
Thus they're ALL equal -- Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness and all the others!!
And the Ninth Amendment forbids government to deny or favor EITHER right.
This demolishes BOTH extremes ... conception and point of delivery -- each fascists trying to impose their personal value over fundamental rights. AMAZING what we can achieve with the most obvious moral principles..
What about the goddamn niggers?
/sarc
ANY dipwad who uses "lamestream"" is a RAGING bigot ... a snowflake whining about being objective
Typical Trumpster
Links to a YouTube video by (another) raging bigot ... AS A RELIABLE SOURCE!
While pissing and moaning about "objective" OMG! They walk among us!!!
Even TRUMP says your full of crap on that..
Are you sime maniac troll .. paid bny George Soros -- to ridicule Trump supporters?
Then again, Trump said you'd stand by him shooting somebody to death, in broad daylight, with witnesses! We don't know about the murder ... but you ALREADY stand by him calling you a dumbass goober, devoid of any moral standards.
That COULD also explain your totally shameful lies here.
Give Alex a hug while you're "pleasuring" him orally.
FAKE NEWS (lol)
"lamestream" and "hitlery' =- raging hatred (f*cking scary)
Brainwashed by Fox, Breitbart and Infowars to deny REALITY
Why did 10 million vote AGAINST Trump?
Why is Trump TWICE as disliked as ANY President, in all but 3 mionths - SINCE EISENHOWER?
Why did only 37% of Republicans support his nomination?
Why did his LOSING vote include a RECORD NUMBER OF ANTI-OPPONENT VOTES? (voted against Hillary, NOT for him)
Why did he win the Electoral Vote by fewer than 80,000 votes in 3 states COMBINED?
How much influence would Russia have needed to swing so tiny a margin?
Why does Trump deny collusion, when the issue is CONSPIRACY -- which his son confessed to.
And OBSTRUCTION, which HE confessed to?
Why do voters prefer Democrats over Republicans by a massive 10% or more ... PER FOX AND GINGRICH.
Also Fox and Gingrich. Newt Gingrich: My fellow Republicans, a Democratic wave election is coming unless we act right now | Fox News
Why are Trump's snowflakes as eager to be brainwashed as Berniebots ... and so totally contemptuous of "incon-veeeeeen-yent facts?
*** WHEN THEY OFFER YOU THE KOOL-AID ... DO NOT DRINK IT!
Actually, 60% would self-define as libertarian -- fiscally conservative and socially liberal
So your lies and screwups on this page now total 38.
And like most cyber-bullies, you want to censor him.
Libertarians have always opposed aggressors like you.
It's like pasting "asshole" on aggressors and thugs Here's your sign.
And some thought THE KLAN was satanic?
It's your bigotry that's wrong. Your contempt for fundamental liberties. Presumably because your parents never washed out your mouth with soap.
Or not often enough.
You did ask.
"It's STILL fractional reserve banking"
No, it's not. Unless you consider 1/1 a "fraction". (Technically correct is the best kind of correct, amiright?)
"The CDs MUST be a fraction of the assets."
No, they don't.
"THEY EARN NO INTEREST, SO WHY IS THE MONEY THERE?"
Security. during price deflation, there is no issue.
It's all explained here, if you care to learn:
https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Full_reserve_banking
You: Now ... please describe the ONLY way to POSSIBLY maintain stable prices
Me: You don't want "stable prices". You want deflation.
You: WRONG DEFLATION
Me: you were talking price deflation
See? You were talking "stable prices". Ergo, the deflation I responded with would be price deflation, not monetary.
But, by all means, call me a "liar" for understanding how words work. How's that been working for you?
https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Deflation
Yes, and you also said "still no" to my question as to whether leaving someone 100 miles out on the ocean is murder.
You're amoral and your concepts as to what murder is shouldn't be trusted, per the link.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/03.....nt_6804634
BambiB has issued a public threat to commit first-degree murder. I have emailed the proof to her victim.
If you threaten ME, I'll track you down and kill you ... in the most painful way possible. Guaranteed.
You psycho-conservatives are a disgrace.
Me: I invite you on a boat trip, I say we should go out on the ocean and fish or something. You agree. I drive the boat out 100 miles into the ocean. I then say that I don't have as much food and water as I thought and I don't want to share; also, I only have the one fishing pole. So I dis-invite you and tell you to get off the boat or I'll remove you from my property. You say you can't possibly swim 100 miles and you'll drown. I tell you that sucks and kick you off my boat.
Have I murdered you?
You: Still no.
Any questions as to Hihn's moral failings?
http://reason.com/blog/2017/03.....nt_6804634
(Hihn, if you'd prefer not to be on my "list of obnoxious trolls who need to have the dumbest things they've said recorded for future use so they don't argue for several weeks with me" list, then don't be an obnoxious troll!)
God Bless!
"WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL REASON?"
You: Unalienable means absolute.
That's literally what his answer was. Look it up. So, because "unalienable means absolute", taking someone out 100 miles to sea and leaving them there isn't murder.
Does everyone understand how amoral that is? Why would you ever listen to him about anything regarding morals or ethics?
"I know HOW they're different. You do not."
Then how did I just give you their proper definitions with and a link to prove it?
"ONLY UNEDUCATED AN-CAPS (and Ron Paul) WANT DEFLATION"
So, you don't want price deflation, you don't want your dollar to go further? That's sad. I like more purchasing power.
"FUCK THE WORKING CLASS"
So you're saying you're a class warrior now?
"Your bullshit and ignorance are finally revealed here ... when I finally extract your ignorance of fundamental economics"
Your link only proves that you have no idea what words mean.
"On deflation -- it's you vs Milton Friedman. a Nobel Laureate in Economics"
Assuming that's true (and it's not), it's an Appeal to Authority. Also, you know who has a Nobel in Economics? Krugman!
"Do we want a stable money supply or stable prices?"
Stable prices are worse than price deflation, as everyone who's ever bought anything would know.
"Falling prices can have EITHER monetary OR investment/productivity causes."
And? "Investment" in stupid governmental malinvestments are bad. "Production" of stupid governmental claptrap is also bad. Ergo, just because price deflation can be caused by changes in production/investment, that doesn't mean that those changes are bad. GDP is worthless as it fails to take into account that value is relative, and it includes governmental spending as a plus!
"ONLY UNEDUCATED AN-CAPS (and Ron Paul) WANT DEFLATION"
Everyone wants price deflation of their own money, except the insane!
Your link proves you don't understand economics, but your word comprehension is even worse.
Linking to your own error hardly helps your (hopeless) cause.
Well, to be fair, us men on average are more likely to support pointless wars (inspite of the risk of getting drafted to boot). So theres that.
Besides economic issues, us men are more homophobic and want to tell gay men what they can't do in the bedroom, because it makes **us** uncomfortable. But on the flip side, women are (by a few pts) more likely to oppose legalizing weed, more likely to support the "V-chip" (thanks Tipper Gore) and were the ones who started the whole prohibition thing.
So I guess its a wash.